419 



mssion clearer I wîll poinl oui : (1) Thaï I use the old and svell 

 known family naine Lygieida? and nol Myodochidse one ofthree uew 

 liâmes proposed by Kirkalhv and adopted by Bergroth to super- 

 sede il. Ci) The objection vvas really made b\ Breodin i 1907 1 though 

 now repealed by Bergroth. (3) Both Breddin and Bergroth hâve 

 refrained from mentioning thaï Lethierry (1894) pteceded me in 

 placing Malcus in the Colobathri&tidce (Xeth. and Sev., Càt. Hem. 

 Il, p. 175). 



The subfamiiy MaLclda proposed by Stâl (1865), evidently used 

 for the réception of bis genus Malcus, was subsequently discar 

 ded by Stâl himselfin lus « En. Hein. IV, p. I7<) (1874) » where 

 lie places Malcus under a Gênera el Species Lygaeidarum incerti 

 loci systematici ». AsSTÂLthus virtually suppressed bis own sub- 

 famiiy il would perhaps be bélier for Bergroth to mention that facl 

 before criticising other writers for not using il, bnl still oui* good 

 friend Bergroth is known to l'ollow criticism « cnrrente calamo ». 

 As regards Àrtemidorus I am still a heretic. 



M y friend Mis. Charles s. Banks has" recenlly (Phill. .1. Sci. IV, 

 p. 564, 1909) remarked, and with justice, thaï the able and 

 painstaking artisl who has illustrated ni\ volumes on the Rynchota 

 of British India, has, in dealing with Eumenotes obscura failed to 

 show the veins of the membrane to be reticulated. But Mit. Banks 

 himself bas nol been able to clear up the « greal confusion » which 

 be rightly says is attached to Ibis genus and species, especially 

 whon difl'erenl ligures purporting lu represent it are examined. 

 Thus the Aradus truncatus W'alk. is generally regarded as a syno 

 nym of Eumenotes obscura Westw., admitted by Bergroth, who 

 yet (Ann. Mus. Civ. Genoa, XXVII, p. 733, pi. XII, f. 4,1889) has 

 ligured, if that figure is to be accepted as correct, a species wtiich 

 by the shape of the scutellum, and the venation of the membrane 

 dues nol conform to the figure given by Westwood as representing 

 bis obscura (Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., IV, pi XVIII, f. i. 1847), nor 

 can the figures given by Banks and myself be allogether reconciled 

 with either those of Westwood and Bergroth. Therefore if figures 

 are to be accepted as really representery the species, there must be 

 three that cannol possibly be reconciled with one another. 



They arc : 



Eumenotes obscura Westw, Trans. Ent. Suc. Lond , IV, p. 24,7. 

 PI. XVIII, f. 1(1847). 



Odonia truncata Bergr. Ann. .Mus. Civ. Genoa, XXVII, p, 733. 

 PI. XII, f. 'm 1889). 



Eumenotes obscura Dist. Eaun. Brit. India Khynch., Il, p. 155, 

 f. 114(1903) venation membrane de fective, Banks, Phill. 1. Sei. IV. 

 PI. II, f. 4(1909). 



